Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 118
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Saw one talking head speculate on the TV contracts and that cutting out all of the pre-season games costs on the local TV/radio deals, and there are several national pre-season games as part of the national package. All that money goes away.

    If fans attend 0 games that is around 40% of league revenue gone.

    When players get sick and miss a month each time the product on the field will suffer which will result in even lower merch sales which is both an NFL and local issue. When veteran stars are cut just because of their contracts and no teams have money to sign them it's going to hurt viewership and merch sales which of course also hurts the cap in the future.

    The cap IS going to plummet, the worst estimate I saw was by $68M ... now imagine what ticket sales are going to look like as each team tries to cut $70M in contracts from their books while also maintaining the minimum roster size keeping in mind veteran and rookie minimum contract sizes (which are also going to go down).

    If the players want to do everything they can to keep the league healthy and be able to get paid on their large contracts it's in their interest to work with the owners.

    Right now the players get 48% of all revenue, and assuming no more games are cut from the season that revenue may drop by as much as 40%. The owners are desperate to tear up the CBA and re-negotiate it and the players REALLY don't want that. It's in their best interest to meet the owners part way, and right now some significant percentage of pay in escrow seems like a pretty good deal in the long run.

    This is not a 1 year issue, it's a 10 year issue.
    Exactly. I think the 40% number is high. I've seen estimates that ticket sales are between 15-20%. Can't imagine the preseason deals and concessions really drive it all the way to 40%.

    But either way, your point is correct. There's going to be massive cap drop. Not sure if $68 mill is the correct number, but let's just call it $50 for easier math. So the players give back say $20 mill per team this year. The owners then give that $20 mill back next year so th.e cap only drops by $30 mill. And the players, if theyre fighting to negotiate, they could then fight to say the owners need to give an additional $20 mill again next year. And that $20 mill is robbed from future cap jumps. Assuming league revenue picks up right where it left off before covid 19, you could probably take that $20 mill off of the 2022 cap right away, or do $10 a year in 2022 and 2023.

    The nfl should take a note from the nba. The nba had a massive cap jump in one year because of a new TV deal. The players didn't want to smooth the cap, and took all the money in 1 year. Teams overspent that year, which was awesome for a handful of guys who were FAs that year, but the contracts locked teams in and the following 2-3 years FA was pretty dry. The nfl should absolutely try to avoid a massive shark tooth in the cap where there's a big drop and a big increase. Figure out a way to smooth it out and the players giving back some in a year of large revenue decreases makes sense to me. The owners should have to overpay next year to offset that as well, so it's not just the players biting the bullet, but both sides need to give a little.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    17,823
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Players can get loans too if they wanted too. If they canít it means they have bad credit and live outside their means...which isnít ownerships problems.
    Far from as easily, and at much worse conditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    But either way, your point is correct. There's going to be massive cap drop. Not sure if $68 mill is the correct number, but let's just call it $50 for easier math. So the players give back say $20 mill per team this year. The owners then give that $20 mill back next year so the cap only drops by $30 mill.
    That's not what was proposed though -- at least not according to the reporting on it.

    If you're a player why would you want 35% of your 2020 contract paid out in 2021? You gain nothing from it. The proposal also did not have any additional cap adjustment apart from the expected loss in revenue, because any such adjustment would have to be collectively bargained.

    Besides a lot of the players probably have family who aren't doing so well right now economically, with high unemployment, so they have good reason themselves why they would need the money *in 2020*.
    Last edited by QB_Eagles; 07-12-2020 at 05:10 PM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,220
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Far from as easily, and at much worse conditions.


    That's not what was proposed though -- at least not according to the reporting on it.

    If you're a player why would you want 35% of your 2020 contract paid out in 2021? You gain nothing from it. The proposal also did not have any additional cap adjustment apart from the expected loss in revenue, because any such adjustment would have to be collectively bargained.

    Besides a lot of the players probably have family who aren't doing so well right now economically, with high unemployment, so they have good reason themselves why they would need the money *in 2020*.
    That's why you negotiate. The players allegedly countered with a proposal that involves no escrow, flat cap in 2021 and the hit spread through 2022-2030. That's not realistically going to happen either.

    Both sides have every right to say let's just roll with the current CBA. That means players get full pay this year, cap drops a ton next year, then jumps again after that.

    If that happens, owners shoulder all the losses this year and then they make it back the following year. But from a league wide perspective, that's not a great plan. So both sides likely need to give a little to avoid that. And the players "give" is likely giving up money this year.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,924
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    That's why you negotiate. The players allegedly countered with a proposal that involves no escrow, flat cap in 2021 and the hit spread through 2022-2030. That's not realistically going to happen either.

    Both sides have every right to say let's just roll with the current CBA. That means players get full pay this year, cap drops a ton next year, then jumps again after that.

    If that happens, owners shoulder all the losses this year and then they make it back the following year. But from a league wide perspective, that's not a great plan. So both sides likely need to give a little to avoid that. And the players "give" is likely giving up money this year.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    27,519
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    because they didn't do any actual work in GETTING those billions?
    I get it, some did more than others, some were born into it....but they didn't get drafted into the billionaires club and if they did, where do I go to sign up?

    I realize the obvious differences here, but in the typical business, the owners hire people to do the work they need done in order to run their business and the employees agree to a wage scale to do that work. In this case, employees literally have contracts to follow as to what that entails and what they're paid for that work.

    What we don't know here is what the actual losses are for the owners and were they came up with 35%. If it were to come out they stand to lose 50% and are only asking to withhold 35%, does that change things? And again, they're not asking for 35% pay cuts, they're asking 35% be held out for the time being.
    Actually, people usually are born into wealth and opportunity in the US. Essentially no upward mobility. You're born middle class- you'll stay middle class. You're born poor- you'll stay poor. You're born wealthy - you'll stay wealthy.

    That has nothing to do with working harder or smarter.


    I could care less about anecdotes of people working their way up from nothing...its about the system.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Metroplex
    Posts
    2,799
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Wouldn't you?

    I'd first wait and see that the owners take their losses as well, not just use player salaries to offset theirs.
    Remember what we call losses is likely just a reduction in expected profits not actual cash cost losses. The ****ing greedy owners want the certainty of guaranteed profits

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Metroplex
    Posts
    2,799
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    Actually, people usually are born into wealth and opportunity in the US. Essentially no upward mobility. You're born middle class- you'll stay middle class. You're born poor- you'll stay poor. You're born wealthy - you'll stay wealthy.

    That has nothing to do with working harder or smarter.


    I could care less about anecdotes of people working their way up from nothing...its about the system.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
    This is very accurate in the past 45 years. It is a demonstrably true statement proven out by the data. Upward mobility very limited and is very much the exception not the rule. Current tax philosophy is further concentrating wealth in a few hands. Trying to get the players to take prospective cuts is tantamount to subsidizing their losses when the reality is they get all the upside of their tax funded stadiums and local revenue in good years. Jerry Jones and the Cowboys have been making 500 million to 600 million a year in net profits. I couldn't care less if he breaks even this year nor should the players.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,220
    Quote Originally Posted by zookman65 View Post
    This is very accurate in the past 45 years. It is a demonstrably true statement proven out by the data. Upward mobility very limited and is very much the exception not the rule. Current tax philosophy is further concentrating wealth in a few hands. Trying to get the players to take prospective cuts is tantamount to subsidizing their losses when the reality is they get all the upside of their tax funded stadiums and local revenue in good years. Jerry Jones and the Cowboys have been making 500 million to 600 million a year in net profits. I couldn't care less if he breaks even this year nor should the players.
    But revenue dictates the cap. Most peopls arguing for the players to "subsidize" losses this year aren't arguing that we all feel bad for the owners, we're arguing that the salary cap is set based upon revenue. If revenue dries up for a year, which it almost surely will (no preseason, little to no fans in the stands even if they play 16 and playoffs), then the cap drops next year and that drop will likely be substantial.

    A huge cap drop would kill a certain group of players, mainly non-star vets who are past their rookie deals. There will be no market for those guys. But honestly, as the nba showed when they refused to smooth their cap, huge cap jumps, which could then happen in 2022, aren't good for the league either. Huge jumps result in that FA class getting overpaid, which is great for that class, but that typically means struggles for the next few FA classes as teams are forced to eat those overpaid contracts. And it may not be as prevalent in the nfl as the nba, but the one time cap jump was also largely responsible for allowing Durant to join GS and create a super team.

    And thats pretty much the point those in favor of a system where the players give a little this year are favoring. The best scenario is to forecast the revenue for the next 5-7 years and figure out what the best way to divvy that up so the players and owners both get what they collectively bargained as a total dollar figure. With revenues likely falling substantially, it's going to be almost impossible to stay anywhere near the bargained percent of revenue each season. So get together and figure out how to even it out over 5 or so years so that the cap doesn't shark tooth up and down too much.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    17,823
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    If that happens, owners shoulder all the losses this year and then they make it back the following year. But from a league wide perspective, that's not a great plan.
    Why not?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,753
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Why not?
    You canít see how this would be bad for the players?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    17,823
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    You canít see how this would be bad for the players?
    Obviously the cap shrinking due to COVID is bad.

    I just struggle to see how getting 35% of their 2020 salary in 2021 helps them.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,924
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Obviously the cap shrinking due to COVID is bad.

    I just struggle to see how getting 35% of their 2020 salary in 2021 helps them.
    No offense, not trying to be rude or mean but I believe there's a huge disconnect in understanding because you may not quite understand what escrow means or how it works/operates.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    17,823
    Quote Originally Posted by NBA all the way View Post
    No offense, not trying to be rude or mean but I believe there's a huge disconnect in understanding because you may not quite understand what escrow means or how it works/operates.
    In case I don't, what would the benefit for the players be under this proposal?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,220
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    In case I don't, what would the benefit for the players be under this proposal?
    No one has said the players should blindly accept this proposal. The arguement is they should negotiate with this. The players give some thus year and the owners give some next year and maybe a little beyond. That would also likely result in the players giving a bit in the longer term too.

    There is no benefit this year to the players taking a pay cut or pushing out earnings. The benefit is that they can use it as a tactic to avoid massive losses the following year.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the league is highly unlikely to make the revenue they projected when setting salary caps. No one knows exactly how much revenue will be lost. We don't know if the season will fully play, what the preseason looks like or how many, if any, fans will be in seats. But we know revenue will likely be less. If nothing is done this year the cap will drop. The players would have received more than their negotiated share of league revenues, so the owners would be entitled to get that back through a lower cap per the CBA.

    Current estimates are the cap could drop $30-80 mill next year. Looking at current cap projections, even at $30 mill drop, half the teams in the league would have to create cap space. This is before draft and free agency. So half the teams would havd to trim fairly significant amounts of salary. Meaning cuts and virtually no free agent market. At a $50 mill drop, only 7 teams would have enough cap room prior to FA and the draft to not cut players (though those teams still will have to likely cut vets since those teams probably have significant FAs.) At $80 mill, only 3 teams are in the clear.

    And that's all before FA even starts. Guys lije Dak and a bunch of other 2021 FAs will still get paid, resulting in even more released vets. And that's the risk. Once those guys get cut, there's no market for them as since no one has space. You'll see huge chunks of the non-rookie deal section of the league playing on vet minimum contracts.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    14,072
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    In case I don't, what would the benefit for the players be under this proposal?
    there are some situations where the 'benefit' is choosing the lesser detriment
    ....kinda like most of our presidential elections
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •